I just read this comment on an article:
Fairly unsurprising. All if this comes along with the endless narcissism that permeates our culture currently. Mix in a little unchecked consumerism and we’ve created a population where people mostly care about themselves and they must never ever be satisfied with what they have. Perhaps previously men evaded the aesthetic part of this plague, but no longer. Men are quickly becoming as vain and judgmental when it comes to looks, and thus, are being subjected to many of the disastrous hurdles that women have faced for decades.
I feel like anyone who blames civilians (not companies) for this problem is an idiot. What the hell do you think is going to happen when everyone is raised in a media landscape run by people who intend to use insecurity to make billions of dollars? It’s not any one person’s fault if they are insecure and it bothers them. How many movies are about how the main damn character is insecure and how they get over it because of some crazy event in their life?
We don’t have crazy events in our lives like that. We’re told the default state you should be in is self-hatred by almost everything. Our parents can even contradict it and it doesn’t matter - kids love their parents but don’t listen to them once you get to a certain point.
Also I don’t like that it’s only a hurdle until it is now apparently affecting men by this guy’s definition. Before that it was just rampant vanity, but no, now men are being affected so it’s a hurdle.
I find it really weird that Miley Cyrus calls herself “the biggest feminist in the world” (then immediately says she isn’t a feminist, but that’s another issue). A lot people are saying because she “takes off her clothes” she can’t be one, and obviously that is a load of crap.
But she isn’t. Feminism is about equality and choice, where is she preaching either of those things? She appropriates and objectifies black women like crazy, which is both racist and anti-feminist. And she doesn’t talk about choice or free will, she just acts like a spoiled brat with no regard for anyone or anything and basically says “because I can.” That isn’t the same thing at all.
Even so, there is literally nothing at all wrong with how she dresses or acts. It’s representing it how she does that I can’t abide. We Can’t Stop was what really put that on my radar, because there are lines upon lines of body positivity, love for all and free will in the lyrics of the song, while women of color and weight are essentially joke props while she lifts things from black culture without any regard every time she does anything. Which is a pretty big contradiction, if you ask me.
Simply being comfortable with sexuality isn’t feminism. It’s really not anything at all. People have been pretty comfortable in their sexuality for a long time now. Advancing women’s position to that where there is no question in anyone’s mind that sexual organs don’t determine your life path (I’m pretty sure) is. Miley Cyrus is really not doing that. She’s the pawn of a team of businessmen, just like many of her ilk, to make money. You think these antics aren’t planned? Controlled? Advised? Do you think there weren’t meetings about the VMAs? The EMAs? That time she took a shit in public? Okay, that one didn’t happen. But it will.
Being a pawn, even an outrageous pawn, is not feminism. It’s pretty much the opposite. And Miley is just that: a record company shill. They have a business plan for her and she is following it. Don’t tell me that is feminist. Equality and free will are, but when does a pawn have either?
When your front bike tire is full of air and your rear one is flat, you don’t fill up both. You fill up the one that doesn’t have the air until they are both equally and properly full of air. You don’t need to take air from the front tire to fill up the rear one, so in reality the front tire is of utterly no concern.
The front tire is men and the rear is women if you’re extra thick.
So my current project is a parody of Royals by Lorde. I’ve written it, and it’s critical of the fact the song is both boring and what it claims to be against. It’s a low-effort tune which is every bit as shallow as everything it lashes out against. It’s the equal but opposite reaction rather than genuine criticism. And that bores me.
That being said, the music video is the most bland thing I’ve ever seen. There’s nothing to parody, it is literally people doing mundane things in mundane places. And that’s probably the point of it but really just isn’t this artistic statement it claims to be. Nor is Lorde this progressive genius she’s painting herself as. She claims to be a feminist, yet attacks the choices of other women - not the corporations that exploit them or the indoctrination which causes a lot of these things she is critical of. The problem is, no matter how much you disagree with it, what other people do is their choice. Even if you deem it demeaning. Many factors influence that choice, and some people are somewhat opportunistic, but that doesn’t change the fact it’s their right to act how they deem correct for them.
And this is from someone intensely critical of people in the media and their presentation of themselves. I do not attempt to say “they shouldn’t live as they do,” though. I say “see them for what they are,” the visible element of a marketing plan, engineered by a team of people and barely ever what they brand themselves as. Which, by the way, Lorde has a team of people doing the exact same thing with her public image they do. She might believe her image, but it’s as manufactured as any Disney alumni out there. And what it comes down to is that a lot of what Lorde seems to be against is not a single person’s fault - but is pinned on her targets. It’s things inherent in marketing and our society that need to change, not what Selena Gomez acts like.
Selena Gomez is an effect, not a cause. You do not win by going after the effect, and you expose your lack of thought of the matters at hand.
She may believe this faux-indie-philosopher act she’s working, too. I don’t know. I believe she probably does. My guess is she believes she is making some kind of real change as she criticizes other artists on her Twitter feed in literally the same way all these self-important “stars” do (male or female). They all have to be the best, sit at the top, the winner (the Queen Bee, if you will). They have to show why you should listen to them and not someone else - even though the music market has literally never been mutually exclusive. And she’s just doing that while claiming to have some kind of social justice pedigree, which I find more annoying than just being a stuck-up result of internalized misogyny. In truth, it’s actually a distraction from the real problems rather than a call to arms.
And the song is just so bland! It’s so sparse and minimal in the least good sense of the word. It sounds like a quick track you would make to not forget what the thing you just thought of sounds like.
So I have to figure out how to do a visually interesting, funny video that is reminiscent of the real one… Which actually may be impossible.
"I don’t like Dr. Pepper’s name. It doesn’t sound like a tasty drink, but naturally people should just automatically like Dr. Pepper. I think we shouldn’t call it Dr. Pepper - in fact, it shouldn’t even have a name at all - but rather just acknowledge that the taste is awesome and assume everyone will drink it."
That is equating Mr. Whedon’s argument about the word feminist having negative connotations (and that equality is a natural state) to a soft drink that has literally the worst name anyone could imagine for a sugary, junk-food drink. The problem is, not everyone naturally loves Dr. Pepper’s taste. Not everyone naturally feels like equality is how it should be.
We have to call it Dr. Pepper because it’s not Coca-Cola. If we just left it to be a nameless liquid, who would ever try it? I wouldn’t. It’s brown liquid. Brown. Liquid.
Embryonic personhood means a batch of cells with no organs (most importantly a functioning brain) has all the rights any person has.
None of these are any less absurd than any other one.
If the ladies are more like Morgan Webb and Jade Raymond and less like Anita Sarkeesian, then I will slam that button!
So you prefer women who are either not vocally (and therefore possibly not) feminist (especially while posing in Maxim) or have never publicly associated themselves with feminism and silently take a metric ton of misogyny without speaking out so their game would do well (I honestly have nothing against either of these two people, keep in mind, they probably deal with a ton of crap) to someone who actually analyzes games for the issues they present in support of an uneven, malicious worldview of half the earth’s people and therefore has a bad reputation among males?
I don’t even always agree with Sarkeesian, but those two are serious copouts. I’m not trying to be a jerk to you, but I just couldn’t let this slide. I tried as hard as I could. This is from yesterday and I was still thinking about it. What the hell does everyone have against Sarkeesian? She has said stuff about games I love and that doesn’t mean they are automatically crap, or even that she’s 100% right about them. But she is doing actual work about how games present women (that’s probably what they have against her).
A larger question I have about people like her, why is it that when they question games people like, people completely lose their footing. Are they not confident enough in their own interests to be like “yeah, I guess that is wrong, but that doesn’t change the quality of this game. It just means there is an issue about it that game developers and publishers need to address.”
I never thought of gaming as like the last bastion of the 1950s “boys-only” thing, I always thought of sports as that. As an adult I’m not sure I was entirely right.